Why doesn't the iPod touch get recognition as a handheld gaming console?

[migo]

It's probably due to Apple's original marketing scheme.

It's part of the iPod range, which started out as a range of simple music players. It then went onto become a video player from the "iPod Video" range of iPods, then eventually gained more functions.

To this day, iPods are capable of so much, but because of the original marketing scheme, in the consumer mindset it's still an mp3 player 1st.

It's like when the PSP first came out. It was capable of playing music, videos, and running an internet browser, but its primary function is video games. That's the market sector that it got its sales from.

Still... at least they're doing better with their multi-functional gaming/media device than Nokia did.

I like your point about the PSP, although Sony really screwed the pooch requiring memory stick and UMD rather than something more ubiquitous (like say a mini-DVD with disc carriage so they could be played on normal DVD players as well). Apple certainly did better with a more universal standard of digital distribution, but the original marketing scheme I guess would have some impact. Apple did specifically put the speaker into the 2nd gen iPod touch though for gaming, but come to think of it I haven't seen any gaming ads for it in a while.

 

[migo]

Because it's an MP3 player, it's as much as console as my Zune.

The Zune literally has 5 games on it (last I checked anyway, regardless it is an actually low number). The iPod touch has thousands of games.

I'm wondering if people read more than the title, because I made it pretty clear in the first post the range of games on the iPod touch, and people are still going back to their preconceptions of what it has.

 

[migo]

Simply put, it's not made to be a handheld gaming device.

I would say ostensibly because it wasn't designed and built to be a gaming console, it was designed and built to be an music player. Now I know the iTouch can play games, but that isn't it's primary function, it's primary function is to play music. My cell phone can play games too, but I don't call it gaming console.

Gaming websites have PC game sections, and PC games are discussed alongside PS and Xbox games, so that logic doesn't seem too sound. Of course on the surface it makes sense, and initially in 2007 and 2008 before it had really developed as a games platform it's justifiable, but by now you have major developers like EA and Square Enix developing for iOS, and Nintendo has set their sights squarely on Apple. Eventually you'd think people would realise that yes, it didn't start out as a gaming platform, but it certainly is one now, just like the PC didn't start out as one - hell joysticks used to plug in through the midi port on a sound card!

PCs are a different beast, in that they are large and not designed to be handheld. The IPod Touch and iPhone are built to be handheld, which limits it's capabilities for users to use it other then what it was designed to do; Play Music, Web surf, and Make Calls. When Apple Designed the iPod Touch, they did not think "make this a gaming device" they said "make a music player with web capabilities." That's why it has such a simple, elegant design.

In comparison, the DS and PSP were designed to be gaming consoles. They fit snugly in hand and the buttons are placed strategically to be easy to switch between buttons. That and the fact they are physical buttons mean that you don't even need to look at them to know you've pressed them and you can focus your attention to the screen.

The reason the PC is considered a platform is because when a computer is developed, the developer doesn't say "Let's make a device that surfs the web and makes spreadsheets," they say "People use these computers in more ways then we can imagine, lets make sure it can serve any kind of purpose." Thusly when people buy a computer they can be buying it for the sole purpose of managing their home business, loading it up with video editing and graphics programs, or even for games. For some, computers are business tool, for others it's a straight up game console and it was designed in a simple enough matter to serve both purposes and millions of others.

This doesn't pan out. The keyboard and mouse weren't designed for gaming at all, yet they're still the best option (or keyboard and trackball if you prefer, with the latter being designed for CAD and such) for first person shooters. An interface doesn't have to be designed for gaming for it to be good for gaming, that's already been established.

The same holds true with the iPod touch, particularly given it has tilt sensors, and the iPhone 4 specifically has a gyroscope in there for additional motion controls, again specifically for games.

There are a number of game types, and in particular racing and flying games, that work far better with the iPod touch's controls over the controls of the PSP and DS. The strategic placement of buttons doesn't hold up either - the DS action buttons are way too small for my liking, and I have small hands. With the iPod touch it depends on the specific game, but a number of them let you select where to place the virual controls, and some also move with your thumb, so wherever you comfortably rest your thumb is where the virtual direction pad shows up.

 

[Baneat]

Cause it has no tactile buttons

Accelerometer based games can't be played in travel

the touch screen is nowhere near as precise as the DS'

 

[Atmos Duality]

Meh. Lousy controls are the #1 killjoy for any game I've played.
The iPod Touch's controls have remained largely inadequate for my gaming needs.

 

[migo]

Reading all the points, and counterpoints, I can only think of one thing.

"I'm not a fanboy--" "Yes you are."

If you know anything about Apple at all you'd know that the forced upgrades are a particularly contentious issue, and my dislike for them is very genuine. I don't let that cloud my judgement though. I hate Sony too, they continuously push proprietary crap, I've got a Sony laptop with horrible build quality and a hybrid GPU, that when Windows 7 was in beta I could install the latest nVidia drivers on, but once Windows 7 went final I once again got stuck with a message saying I had to download the drivers from Sony's website, leaving me with seriously outdated graphics drivers. Despite that, I consider the PS3 to be the best option for home console gaming. Again, I don't let my bias cloud my judgement.

Allow me to elaborate. OP, if you're not an Apple fanboy, why are you making such a huge effort to defend the iTouch to death? A lot of the counterpoints you have made are not universal. You ignore that many other phones can be argued as gaming systems using the exact same logic that you've used with the iPhone, and frankly, some of your arguments make me laugh.

Not many other phones can be argued on that basis at all. First of all, you're really looking at Android and webOS devices, and while the Pre on a hardware level is very capable, it lacks the library of games. Not all Android phones ship with multitouch support, which is rather necessary for gaming, and that seriously cramps the viability of developing games. What sets iOS apart from the others is the fact that it has an absolutely massive library of games. I'm not defending it to the death, I'm correcting blatant misinformation. People are saying stuff like big developers haven't looked at it, and that's clearly not the case. A cursory look at some of the titles for iOS should reveal that the biggest publishers and developers are getting behind iOS as a platform. That's incontrovertible fact, and most definitely is universal.

Particularly the insinuation that the PS3's dual-analog controllers are not meant for FPS games, or that anyone not using a steering wheel in a racing game sucks. My general accuracy in CoD4 would like to have a word with that.

You might think that you're not bad with dual analog sticks for an FPS, but you're never going to be as good as someone playing with a good keyboard and mouse setup.

Likewise, the idea that an analog stick = shitty driving. I've wiped the floor with people using the Wii Wheel in Mario Kart Wii using the GameCube controller.

The Wii wheel isn't a real steering wheel, you're not even comparing the right things here.

I can control Halo Wars just fine using my normal Xbox 360 controller. I have nearly beaten a arcade stick using Street Fighter IV pro using Dan Hibiki and a standard DualShock.

Nearly beaten means you still lost, and it still isn't good enough.

On the other hand, I can't aim for shit in Metroid Prime: Hunters, though I can take potshots accurately in Corruption. I couldn't make any progress in that Wario game for the DS that I forget the name of because it required so much precise scribbling for your attacks. (It's the one where you get the magic wand and become the Purple Wind; if anyone can name it for me, thanks.) That doesn't mean the controls are shitty, though, because, in particular, my MP:H multiplayer experience boiled down to being sniped harder than I ever thought possible in the game. Damn you Trace.

Metroid Prime: Hunters I found very awkward, although my brother could do fine with it thanks to his bigger hands. The same control scheme is used for a number of iOS FPS games and it works very well.

What I'm trying to say is that just because you suck with a controller, doesn't make it an invalid form of gaming for a genre. Just because you can't play a DS game, doesn't mean the controls are crippled.

You're not telling me anything new here. My point is that keyboard and mouse (or alternatively light gun) is the superior method of input for FPS games, and arcade sticks are the superior method of input for fighting games, joystick and pedals are the superior method of input for flight games and steering wheels are the superior method of input for racing games. Despite this, people don't automatically disregard the PS3 or Xbox 360 as gaming consoles. By the same token, even if one accepts that D-Pad + 4 action buttons and 2 shoulder buttons is the superior method of input for a number of games, it does not make a touch screen input completely invalid. You're repeating back what I was saying, except trying to make the opposite argument.

For the record, I did play an FPS on the iPhone. I think it was NOVA, but I can't be sure. My experience boiled down to the game not aiming in any way like I wanted it to, and everyone else in the room seemed to have the same problem, because they would miss. Constantly. The only reason I kept dying was because I missed more than they did. Granted, this was a singular experience, but I don't state it as evidence that the game necessarily sucks. Just that I find the controls really awkward.

It's nowhere as good as a keyboard and mouse, I agree, and certainly it relies on autoaim, but so did Halo when it was the first attempt at making a viable attempt at a FPS on a console. iOS FPS games are far from perfect, but the aiming scheme is rather like a touchpad on a computer, which is definitely unideal but it still works. Since you're using a portable device, you can make a compromise. Either the experience isn't good enough and you just don't play it on the go at all, or you settle and go for what the best experience is with a first person shooter. The DS can't provide anything better, and neither can the PSP. The DS might come second if your hands are big enough, PSP is the least viable thanks to Sony being retarded and only including a single analog stick. At least dual analog is a viable way of doing an FPS game, even if it's pretty crappy compared to keyboard & mouse.

Of course, you on the other hand claimed such inability to play in a certain way was a fact. All to defend your precious fanboy reasons for saying that the iPhone, or iPod Touch, whatever, is a gaming system.

I didn't say anything about inability, I was talking about inferiority. Dual analog is clearly inferior to racing wheel, keyboard & mouse, arcade stick & joystick for their respective genres.

Oh, and I especially laugh at "You can always tell who's using traditional controls in an online racer because they keep zig-zagging around corners. They can't do a steady turn, etc." I can do those turns just fine without a steering wheel in Forza 3, thanks for assuming.

Your comprehension of English is lacking. If someone's doing zig zags it's because they're using an analog stick or D-pad. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. That second part of logic is something you don't seem to understand right now.

 

[Deef]

Because the iPod Touch is inferior in both controls and quality of it's games. I have no games on my iTouch because every time I've tried to play a game more complicated than "tap the screen to avoid the obstacle", it's been an awful experience.

 

[migo]

What I was going for was that the DS has games with inferior graphics quality, but far superior battery life - the Game Boy in the equation - while the iPod Touch is capable of technically superior graphics, but at the expense of not being able to play them for as long. Except that the Game Gear didn't sell out as quickly to vapid puzzle games and shovelware.

The iPhone even, and certainly not the iPod touch, doesn't equate to the GameGear though. The GameGear would last 2-3 hours at best, the same as the PSP. While the iPod touch (if you remember to turn WiFi off) isn't as good as the DS, it still hits 6 hours which is good enough. It's not in 2 day car trip territory, but for gaming on the go, in the course of your regular daily activities it's competent. If the PSP is considered a gaming console with its battery life, then the battery life of the iPod touch doesn't disqualify it from consideration.

Then you've missed the point. Before the iPod Touch, name a famous game for Apple products that wasn't available for other platforms. I can think of only a few, most of them produced by the same company, which exist - a far cry from the console market and especially so from the PC.

Before the PlayStation name one famous game for Sony's products. Yeah, the argument is still stupid.

I once again ask the same question. Apple has not previously made a big splash in the gaming world, and you underestimate the importance of this. When Microsoft made the original Xbox,

Wrong. Sony. PlayStation. No experience in the gaming world before that.

I don't know about you, but the N-Gage seemed more sorted for games than the iPhone does, although it's obvious that the N-Gage was compromised heavily in design and interface. It's irrelevant for this discussion, but I will also point out that the N-Gage was capable of true, fully-capable pre-emptive multitasking, something that iOS is incapable of without hacks several years later.

The N-Gage tried to integrate traditional gaming controls with traditional phone controls. The iPhone did away with both. It moves to touch screen for phone controls, and this also enables new types of gaming controls too. Strategy games in particular reveal themselves to be far more suited to touch screens than traditional console controls (hence why they rarely show up on anything other than the PC). Point and click adventure games are also far better suited to a touch screen, again if implemented properly. Monkey Island Special Edition was a poor implementation, Broken Sword Director's Cut was a good implementation. The N-Gage didn't bring any sort of advantage in controls or interface over the GBA, while it suffered some drawbacks from cramming so many buttons together.

In your opinion. I feel that the examples you've outlined have some rather striking inherent problems. Let's take your driving sim comment, with GT Racing compared to Gran Turismo. Yes, the tilt functionality may give a moderately more immersive feel than using D-Pads or analogue sticks, but you know, I'm pretty sure that my whole dashboard doesn't rotate when I turn the steering wheel in my own car.

GT Racing doesn't keep the perspective level, but Parcel Panic does. It's perfectly feasible to implement it properly so that isn't a concern either, and it's already been done, just not with a driving sim. Certainly developers are still figuring out how to best implement controls for various types of games, but the viability and potential of the platform is quite clear.

I'm guessing that the acceleration and braking is controlled by the tilt functionality as well.

It's an option, I prefer the onscreen gas pedal and brake pedal.

That would be a big mistake. Considering how much of car racing relies on proper use of the accelerator and brake in order to properly take turns without sliding out thanks to centripetal force, I quite appreciate having separate analogue controls for the accelerator and brake.

It's nice to have, but I'll take better steering controls first, and skip over the control and speed offered by manual shifting given I'm already making a compromise with portable gaming.

As for the comment about oversteer, well, I know it isn't realistic to do so, but wouldn't you logically set up your car in order to counteract that oversteer and take a better line through the corner? If you're serious enough about your driving sims to compare them, surely that will have come logically to you?

You've got to earn the money first before you can buy the right tyres. It was easy enough to do in GT HD concept since there wasn't a cash component, but playing Gran Turismo 2 on the PS it took me a while to be able to get the money to buy the right tyres to compensate for that, and it's certainly better to have that already accounted for in better steering controls, for doing stuff like passing the licensing exams for which you can't use your custom car.

Personally, I think I'll stick to my PC racing simulators, with my force feedback steering wheel and my perspective that doesn't have to be completely shifted every time I turn a hairpin.

That's certainly one way of going about it, and a perfectly valid one, but when you're talking handheld gaming you automatically have to make some compromises for a number of game genres. You can choose not to compromise and not play at all (in which case the DS and PSP aren't viable either), or you can choose to compromise and look at what system overall gives you the best experience.

I picked it specifically because it was raved about, I have experience with it on a lot of different platforms, and because while I agree with John Carmack's stance on open-source software, I disagree with his stance on the iPhone and iPod Touch.

I don't see any raving about Doom on iOS. Maybe it's the different crowds, but there are a lot of games getting discussion, and Doom hardly gets any mention.

You underrate the importance of tactile feedback.

No, I don't. It's not tactile feedback anyway, it's tactile differentiation that is key, and if you can handle spatial relations even that isn't crucial, plus you're looking at the screen that you're playing on anyway. I can pull of Shoryukens and Hadoukens on the iPod touch SFIV better than I can on SNES SFII. The on screen controls beat out physical controls in this instance.

The iPhone/iPod Touch has none, and doesn't even have supplementary haptic feedback to compensate.

Wrong again. Haptic feedback can be implemented by the games using the vibrate function if it's necessary for the particular game.

How am I meant to tell when something is meant to be happening from the feel of touchscreen, rather than the more authoritative feel of a D-Pad or analogue stick? Considering that FPSes regularly rely on very fine movements, I'd rather have a potentially awkward D-Pad that I don't have to look at than a movable virtual directional pad from which I can't feel a thing.

You're looking at it anyway, it's on screen, it's the same as using a touchpad. Aside from the awkward positioning of the touchpad on a laptop, give it a shot. You'll see at the very least that you don't need to be looking at the touchpad to control where you look. It's not as good as a mouse, but it works better than a D-Pad.

I don't see where my logic is narrow or faulty when I suggest that first-person shooters are at least compromised on the PlayStation 3

No, but I said that too. Loathsome and compromised are quite different words though, and your logic is quite faulty there.

- you'd have a very hard time playing something like ARMA 2 on it, with engagement ranges sometimes exceeding five hundred metres. I also don't see where my logic would be narrow or faulty to suggest that micromanagement of units - which is very important in a game like StarCraft 2 - is decidedly more difficult on the 3DS than it would be on a PC. In both of these cases, while it is possible to play said games on each platform, they suffer too many compromises to be as complete as the parent platform of the FPS and the RTS.

You can't play an FPS the same way on an iOS device, no but if people are content to play Halo, there's nothing wrong with NOVA on iOS either.

In the case of the iPod Touch, the advantages of the platform seem to be either in genres which I tend to avoid - my "casual/time-wasting" game is NetHack, of all games - or where I'd much rather use a keyboard and mouse or some sort of PC gaming peripheral which has some sort of tactile feedback.

That's a separate issue, and sure for personal preference iOS might not be viable for you, but you're making assumptions and judgements without having even used a device. There are some people here responding saying they've tried a few games and didn't like them. Sure, if they try it, don't like what they see it's unreasonable to expect them to go through the whole iOS game library and try every game out, but it's very, very reasonable to expect that if you're talking about Doom on the iPod touch that you've actually played it on the iPod touch rather than on a Palm TX.

The points regarding games are the important parts; the thread that I copy-and-pasted from was my own 8,000-word critique of the iPhone, and as the iPod Touch shares the same general platform as the iPhone, any criticisms regarding games can be transferred over. I wouldn't have an iPod Touch myself, but as a media player and for some limited applications, it isn't terrible. Hardly what I'd call an appropriate gaming device, though.

Your first complaint was battery life, which is of course a very valid concern, but it doesn't apply in the case of the iPod touch.

Flight games are meant to be controlled using a joystick - a proper full-sized peripheral joystick. An example would be my own Logitech Extreme 3D Pro [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.83541-Logitech-Extreme-3D-Pro-Joystick-A-Technological-Review] USB joystick for my PC, which may be entry-level as regards PC joysticks, but gets the job done.

Yes, but since you can't carry a joystick with you for portable gaming, tilt controls are the best option.

I predominantly play PC racing simulators now as well, ones which I control using a force-feedback steering wheel. Again, my peripheral is entry-level, but has a control schema which blows any tilt functionality out of the water. Neither of these devices is portable, but I'd rather have proper games in these genres, where accurate detail is key, tethered to my desktop than compromised ones on a mobile device. I don't think my lap times are all that compromised in the few console racing sims that I do play by using the D-Pad rather than tilt controls; automotive racing can rely as much on the proper application of the accelerator as it does on the steering when it comes to making turns, and any game that doesn't model that isn't a proper racing sim.

Proper steering controls allow you to maintain a faster speed in a corner, while poor steering controls require you to stop accelerating or even begin braking more often.

It's funny how you keep on banging on about racing sims to make your point, considering that you're arguing with somebody who has played a fair few of them:

I've played them too, I certainly have the perspective, and the context here is portable gaming.

 

[Danpascooch]

Because it is in the same category as cellphones as far as gaming systems.]

As in, it's not really a gaming system.

 

[migo]

For a Phone that IS a hand held console.. please check out the..

Spoiler: Droid Milestone

It's the same with any Android phone, except most are touch screen

It has buttons, and also you can download..

GBA
SNES

and many other.. (A PSone emulator is in production)

Emulators for the phone.

Great for a GBA at all times with you.. and did i mention, free games obviously

The keyboard on the Milestone is far from suitable for gaming. I haven't played on it specifically, but I've used the E62 which has a reasonably similar physical keyboard. It's no benefit for emulators.

I've got GBA and SNES emulators running on my iPod touch. Chrono Trigger works just fine. Sonic is about the same as iOS native version. Super Mario World doesn't work since you can't carry a shell, run and jump, but that's far from a good suggestion. If you're going to emulate those systems, the Milestone has no edge on iOS devices, and the DS, PSP, GP2X and Dingoo A320 are better options thanks to having identical controls to the original device, although I'm going to have to give SFII a shot and see how it goes in the SNES and GBA emulators, since the D-Pad is rather crappy for it.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

It's very simple.

The Itouch/Iphone/Whatever simply does not have a lineup of highly engaging full length games, it's pretty much just things like Paper Toss and Papijump.

I'll start taking the ITouch seriously as a gaming platform when it takes itself seriously as a gaming platform and actually hosts a number of quality games that aren't based off of spending less than five minutes trying to earn as many points as possible to get a spot on a leaderboard.

The difference between the ITouch and other gaming systems is that other gaming systems have games! you know, real games

Also, just for reference, I don't consider running an emulator to be something that helps make a gadget a game system, since that's really just stealing from another game system.

The touch screen and tilt supports gimmicky minigames, I've yet to see anything substantial in the way of an exclusive game that wouldn't work with something like the DS

 

[migo]

Instead of all this anger, can we just acknowledge that the iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad in terms of gaming is largely a matter of preference? I personally don't like WASD, but RAK evidently thinks it's best. For him, it is. While it does take some getting used to, I found I was able to pull of headshots fairly effectively in "Battle bears". Although, that game doesn't require movement.

And it's similar to the PSP in a way, shooters control oddly, but platformers and strategy games work wonderfully.

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but someone's gonna get modded if it keeps up.

That's really not the issue. He's judging the iPhone and iPod touch based off the Pipin, the Nokia N-Gage (which I'm sure he hasn't used either), and the Palm TX he used. That's just patently absurd. If that's his line of reasoning for deciding not to buy one since he has no reason to buy one otherwise, fine. It's a purchasing decision and reasoning it out based on personal experience makes perfect sense. It's just absurd to go and write an article like that without actually having any real experience with it.

Plenty of people posted about the games they did try and didn't like, and that's fine. At least they have some direct experience with it, but they're also not going anywhere as in depth. "I tried it with a couple games, didn't like them and didn't feel it was worth my time to investigate further." That's great. It's not intellectually dishonest. "The Aple Bandai Pipin failed, Microsoft had gaming pedigree before the Xbox, Doom sucks on my Palm T|X, and the Nokia N-Gage was a failure, therefore the iPhone is a crappy game platform" is a completely ridiculous and intellectually dishonest argument.

 

[migo]

SNIP

It's very simple.

The Itouch/Iphone/Whatever simply does not have a lineup of highly engaging full length games, it's pretty much just things like Paper Toss and Papijump.

No. It's not. Sheesh, do people not read the thread. Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed 2. Splinter Cell Conviction. Alpha Protocol. Broken Sword Director's Cut. The Sims 3. Civilization Revolution. Street Fighter 4. Chaos Rings. Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars.

I'll start taking the ITouch seriously as a gaming platform when it takes itself seriously as a gaming platform and actually hosts a number of quality games that aren't based off of spending less than five minutes trying to earn as many points as possible to get a spot on a leaderboard.

So to make this true, you've been taking the iTouch seriously for the past year. Got it.

 

[capin Rob]

Becuse it just isn't... Dude, It's for playing music, not games, people who think we should take the phones and music players seriously in gaming are almost as bad as the people who keep making motion controls... And on that note

Did anyone else who saw the PS3 move think it controlled better than Wii?

 

[murphy7801]

I think the real answer to this question as in no recognition for the ipod touch is alot of apple enthusiast are not gamers.

 

[AdamRBi]

Simply put, it's not made to be a handheld gaming device.

I would say ostensibly because it wasn't designed and built to be a gaming console, it was designed and built to be an music player. Now I know the iTouch can play games, but that isn't it's primary function, it's primary function is to play music. My cell phone can play games too, but I don't call it gaming console.

Gaming websites have PC game sections, and PC games are discussed alongside PS and Xbox games, so that logic doesn't seem too sound. Of course on the surface it makes sense, and initially in 2007 and 2008 before it had really developed as a games platform it's justifiable, but by now you have major developers like EA and Square Enix developing for iOS, and Nintendo has set their sights squarely on Apple. Eventually you'd think people would realise that yes, it didn't start out as a gaming platform, but it certainly is one now, just like the PC didn't start out as one - hell joysticks used to plug in through the midi port on a sound card!

PCs are a different beast, in that they are large and not designed to be handheld. The IPod Touch and iPhone are built to be handheld, which limits it's capabilities for users to use it other then what it was designed to do; Play Music, Web surf, and Make Calls. When Apple Designed the iPod Touch, they did not think "make this a gaming device" they said "make a music player with web capabilities." That's why it has such a simple, elegant design.

In comparison, the DS and PSP were designed to be gaming consoles. They fit snugly in hand and the buttons are placed strategically to be easy to switch between buttons. That and the fact they are physical buttons mean that you don't even need to look at them to know you've pressed them and you can focus your attention to the screen.

The reason the PC is considered a platform is because when a computer is developed, the developer doesn't say "Let's make a device that surfs the web and makes spreadsheets," they say "People use these computers in more ways then we can imagine, lets make sure it can serve any kind of purpose." Thusly when people buy a computer they can be buying it for the sole purpose of managing their home business, loading it up with video editing and graphics programs, or even for games. For some, computers are business tool, for others it's a straight up game console and it was designed in a simple enough matter to serve both purposes and millions of others.

This doesn't pan out. The keyboard and mouse weren't designed for gaming at all, yet they're still the best option (or keyboard and trackball if you prefer, with the latter being designed for CAD and such) for first person shooters. An interface doesn't have to be designed for gaming for it to be good for gaming, that's already been established.

The same holds true with the iPod touch, particularly given it has tilt sensors, and the iPhone 4 specifically has a gyroscope in there for additional motion controls, again specifically for games.

There are a number of game types, and in particular racing and flying games, that work far better with the iPod touch's controls over the controls of the PSP and DS. The strategic placement of buttons doesn't hold up either - the DS action buttons are way too small for my liking, and I have small hands. With the iPod touch it depends on the specific game, but a number of them let you select where to place the virual controls, and some also move with your thumb, so wherever you comfortably rest your thumb is where the virtual direction pad shows up.

There's a key issue with though screen buttons though, you have to look at them to know you're hitting them. It's as if I was playing DDR and I had to look down at the Pad to tell what button I was about to hit, it distracts me from the game.Regardless of whether or not I move the buttons where ever I want to doesn't mean that I'll know where I am in relation to them in the heat of action. I'd end up overshooting it and missing, or in some regards hit it and not have it register because I didn't press hard enough. With physical buttons, players can eventually learn the layout and then only need to rely on their sense of touch to know they're about to push that crucial "Jump" button. That way they can focus less on what button they're about to press and more about when, why, and what to do next. The buttons also click up and down so you know whether you hit it or not.

Furthermore, despite a static design, a controller or handhelp doen't crowd the screen with it's buttons.

The Motion Control you mentioned was not made specifically for gaming. It was added so you can tilt the device and the interface would remain level with you.

PCs were not designed for gaming, but unlike the iPod it was not designed in a specific way that would limit it's capability to do so. PCs are bigger, have more buttons designed to be easy to type with - which in turn makes it easy to navigate for game controls - and even now some have touch capabilities on their bigger screens, not that it would ever replace the keyboard. With so many options (and additional plug ins like controllers, joysticks, and Trackballs) it makes it very easy to adopt as a gaming platform.

Look, I understand you just want your iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad to be considered a console. But they are merely multipurpose Music Players/Phones/Web Surfers that happen to include games. The Big Three consoles are Computers designed to play games, Computers are Computers designed to do anything including games, and the Handhelds were designed to be handheld Gaming Devices. I'm sorry, but the iPod was just not designed for it.

Just as DVDs with optional games on them don't make DVD players gaming consoles. Nor is the PSP a phone because it has Skype.

It's only a gaming console if it's designed to be one or if it is designed to be easily adapted to be one. The iPod Touch is nether of these.

 

[Cody211282]

Because it's an MP3 player, it's as much as console as my Zune.

The Zune literally has 5 games on it (last I checked anyway, regardless it is an actually low number). The iPod touch has thousands of games.

I'm wondering if people read more than the title, because I made it pretty clear in the first post the range of games on the iPod touch, and people are still going back to their preconceptions of what it has.

The Zune HD has a few games on it, but as stated before flash games really don't count, adult swim might have awesome games to play but they aren't game designers.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

It's very simple.

The Itouch/Iphone/Whatever simply does not have a lineup of highly engaging full length games, it's pretty much just things like Paper Toss and Papijump.

No. It's not. Sheesh, do people not read the thread. Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed 2. Splinter Cell Conviction. Alpha Protocol. Broken Sword Director's Cut. The Sims 3. Civilization Revolution. Street Fighter 4. Chaos Rings. Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars.

I'll start taking the ITouch seriously as a gaming platform when it takes itself seriously as a gaming platform and actually hosts a number of quality games that aren't based off of spending less than five minutes trying to earn as many points as possible to get a spot on a leaderboard.

So to make this true, you've been taking the iTouch seriously for the past year. Got it.

Those are all big franchises, but their Itouch versions all suck horribly.

When it has some good games and not just crappy versions with the same name as good games on other platforms, I'll be interested.

Think what you want, but the lack of any good games is the reason it's not taken seriously as a gaming platform.

 

[migo]

There's a key issue with though screen buttons though, you have to look at them to know you're hitting them.

You're looking at the screen anyway, this is a non-issue even assuming it is true - and it isn't.

I'd end up overshooting it and missing, or in some regards hit it and not have it register because I didn't press hard enough.

OK, we have another person who has no experience with any iDevice making judgements on how it works. You should probably stop right here. It has nothing to do with how hard you pres, all it requires is minimal contact - if you can feel the screen on your thumb, you touched it hard enough to register.

With physical buttons, players can eventually learn the layout and then only need to rely on their sense of touch to know they're about to push that crucial "Jump" button.

The same is true with touch controls, especially the ones that only rely on relative space to where you originally touched, so it's only distance moved from where you touched rather than specific X and Y coordinates. It ends up working the same way.

That way they can focus less on what button they're about to press and more about when, why, and what to do next. The buttons also click up and down so you know whether you hit it or not.

This is a non issue. You know whether you hit it based on whether the expected action happened on screen. All you know with physical buttons is that the game is freezing up if you know you pressed it and no action happened. And again, if you can feel the screen, you know you pressed it.

Furthermore, despite a static design, a controller or handhelp doen't crowd the screen with it's buttons.

Depending on the game this can be an issue, but it's more of a concern with ports than with games designed specifically for iOS, and it's not much different from having a HUD. Certainly the DS does much better in this department as all HUD info can be handled on the second screen, but the PSP hardly has an edge.

The Motion Control you mentioned was not made specifically for gaming. It was added so you can tilt the device and the interface would remain level with you.

Beside the point. The mouse wasn't made specifically for gaming, it was added so you could move the cursor around the screen for doing graphical manipulations and select text.

PCs were not designed for gaming, but unlike the iPod it was not designed in a specific way that would limit it's capability to do so.

The iPod touch was not designed in a specif way that would limit its capability to be a game system. I know this since I actually have one. You don't, because you've never played with one.

Look, I understand you just want your iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad to be considered a console.

Actually, I don't care if it is or not. Games are being made for iOS. It's becoming a bigger target for developers than the PSP by a large margin, and is quickly catching up to the DS in that department (although 3DS might swing that back). It has A-list titles, it has casual mini games, and everything in between, all at a fraction of the price that you'd pay for on the PSP or DS. Developers aren't going to stop making games just because a portion of people on gaming websites don't see it as a game system, so it has no effect on me. I'm just curios why people don't consider it as such, and the main answer based on the vast majority of responses here is ignorance. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's rather odd that people who obviously know nothing about it choose to flaunt their lack of knowledge.